AMG Boss: "The horsepower wars are over."
by Jonathon Ramsey on Jan 14th 2009 at 9:59AM 
Click above for a high-res image gallery of the Mercedes-Benz SL65 AMG Black Series
That's the way it goes with fashion: it's on the runway in Paris in March and in a bucket at Big Lots by September. Mercedes-Benz' in-house tuning arm, AMG, has decided to turn with the popular tide and call time on horsepower brinkmanship, with the division boss saying, "We are going to use other ways to extract better performance, including weight saving, engine optimization and alternative technologies."
What's the new fashion? Getting the most out of the least. AMG is going to do that by losing weight, installing tech like the SL63 AMG's wet clutch gearbox on the coming E63 AMG, and possibly re-engineering Mercedes' diesel, hybrid, and four-cylinder engines for AMG duty.
Not too long ago, imagining an A-Class AMG would have been beyond comprehension, but this is the future. We just hope everyone has thought through the consequences: with the reins being pulled on increasingly powerful motors, this is going to put a lot of horses out of work. And that makes the possibility of an equine industry bailout something we can't rule out...
[Source: Autocar]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Will 10:05AM (1/14/2009)
:(
Reply
Rob 10:35AM (1/14/2009)
:) Less weight= better performance. 500hp in a 4000lb car isn't as good as 250hp in a 2000lb car. Less weight= better response, quicker transitions, better handling, longer lasting brakes, rotors, balljoints, struts, etc.
This is a good thing. Small, lightweight cars are where it's at.
Will 10:44AM (1/14/2009)
Yeah true but the feeling you get when you put the pedal down to the floor on that 500hp/4000lb car is much different than doing that in the lighter, less powerful car. An Exige can't put you back in your seat the way a CTS-V can. Really just preference.
Flashpoint 10:48AM (1/14/2009)
Rob
I beg to differ. A car doesn't have to be small and lightweight to be good, so long as its power to weight ratio is high.
Furthermore, the last thing I'd want is a small light car considering the number of old SUV's still out there without bumper compatibility. People get decapitated by bumper ovveride of old SUV's. I want something comfortable and safe.
That's why I have a Chrysler 300 and an S550. The doors on both cars are like doors from a fridge. Plenty of protection.
As for speed, I'm content with luxurious cars even if they aren't very fast. What gets me is that Benz and BMW act as if they are shaving weight so that the average luxury driver can do the Gran Tourismo in record time...
...they are JUST DRIVING TO WORK through TRAFFIC !
Rob 10:52AM (1/14/2009)
Yes it can. As long as the power to weight ratio is the same, it'll have the same ability to accelerate, with BETTER everything else.
Rob 10:52AM (1/14/2009)
@ Flashpoint: You need to be exposed to some smaller cars. They're much more fun to drive than a boat like a 300. I own two 89 hondas, read about one of them here:
http://www.carlustblog.com/2008/08/car-lust--1988.html
The yellow one is mine. It is an absolute joy to drive. I'm safe because I'm attentive. I avoid idiots constantly.. the trick is just to not get into an accident in the first place.
hashiryu 10:53AM (1/14/2009)
I've been long saying more horsepower can only do so much. If HP stays at its current level, and weight drops, It will only benefit us. AMG finally gets it..... Is that a light at the end of the tunnel I see?
Travis 11:23AM (1/14/2009)
Rob - I had an 88 Prelude Si (without the 4ws). Thanks for the trip down memory lane, GOD I miss that car.
notYou 11:58AM (1/14/2009)
What, no worries - the horsepower wars may be over, but it's the power/weight ratio wars that will be heating up, which is where the real fun has been all along.
Bringing down weight is just as much a performance boost as raising horsepower, if it affects the power/weight ratio the same*.
(*I am not a mathematician, but it generally works out in real-world performance territory and we ignore high speed air resistance, etc.)
Mr.Oak 12:06PM (1/14/2009)
Its not that simplistic.
Ever watch the SCCA runoffs? This past season, top 5 qualifiers were Pontiac Solstice GXPs. Then came a couple of 350Zs, then an EVO followed by a 350Z then an Elise.
That blows your weight theory all to hell. Has more to do with balance and suspension than absolute weight. Same goes for brakes, also a critical component when it comes to handling. Example: If the Solstice had Elise brakes, that would be advantage Elise. However with brakes selected with the Solstice's weight as a consideration, no problem. The engineering that goes into a well built automobile can compensate for it's weight.
Race results: Solstices 1 thru 4. The Solstice leading on the last lap crashed out of the race.
The 350s and the EVO had more power and didn't win, the Elise was the most nimble and didn't win. The Solstices had the best balance of power and handling, so they pretty much ran away from the rest of the field.
hashiryu 12:23PM (1/14/2009)
The point is, given the same balance and P/W ratio, a lighter car will still out-handle, out brake and generally out perform a heavier one. Period.
Franz 1:43PM (1/14/2009)
It really is a matter of preference, and I have to admit that the rush you get from putting pedal to metal in a high hp/torque machine is extremely intoxicating... but for me, my favorite cars have always been lightweight with great handling (love my E30!). There's nothing quite like the satisfaction I get from taking a car that's not too fast and extracting every last ounce of performance out of it.
In my opinion, if you want a real rush you have to drive a slower car really fast... then the drive really becomes about picking the right lines, braking late, hitting every apex and not losing much momentum. You have to concentrate a lot harder, and be a lot smoother with your inputs on steering, throttle and brakes.
I guess that's the reason I'm always a little confused when people around here knock a car like the GT-R for being too easy to drive (and in some respects, I believe it really is) but then turn right around and knock a car like a Honda Civic Si for being down on torque... In my opinion an Si is perfectly balanced, and a blast to drive if you keep the motor on the boil. So what if you have to row the gears and rev it till your ears bleed? You'd think some of these advocates for "real drivers" would love a challenge. But again, I'm not knocking anyone. It really is a matter of personal preference. I love high hp as much as or more than the next guy, but give me a decent handling, lightweight four banger and on the right twisty road or track, the grin on my face will be just as big.
SimbaDogg 3:48PM (1/14/2009)
@ flashpoint...
i've always heard about how much you bring up your benz in other posts, but seriously...wtf man. you're a tool.
IK 6:54PM (1/14/2009)
my favourite part was S550
Matt 8:47PM (1/14/2009)
he said "s550" - everybody drink!!
zamafir 10:07AM (1/14/2009)
Mercedes hit by that 30M fine. People like audi showing interrupted growth the last 13 months in large part due to a larger yet more fuel efficient A4. Mercedes continuing to have their market share eroded by competitors. Everyone else already going this route. Yeah I didn't see this one coming [/sarcasm]
Reply
garlinski 10:27AM (1/14/2009)
sigh. it was fun while it lasted.
Reply
Travis 10:31AM (1/14/2009)
if it means that cars are finally going to start losing that extra 1000 pounds they put on in the last 10 years, I'm all for it...
Reply
Liquid 10:53AM (1/14/2009)
are you talking about the 1000 lbs of mandated pedestrian safety equipment, airbag technology, or laminated side glass? Or are you talking about the backseat DVD players, gigabyte hard drives, and heated&cooled seats? Automakers didn't voluntarily add hundreds of pounds to cars... governments and customers did.
why not the LS2LS7? 11:56AM (1/14/2009)
No, automakers also voluntarily added hundreds of pounds. The government never mandated that the Accord grow from compact to full size and yet it did.
When the 2008 Civic is larger than a 1992 Accord, it's going to be heavier than one too.